You have Accessed a document that is part of the cover web page on a religious opposition to the NYS Seatbelt law, Nassau County, New York.   To access main page, click the icon at the left.





Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.

480 Maitland Street

East Meadow, NY 11554


January 27th, 2006





Kathleen M. Rice

Nassau County District Attorney

262 Old Country Road

Mineola, NY 11501

Re: Summons # LM 761596-3 and LM 761597-4


Dear Kathleen Rice:


While it would be unfair to automatically paint you with the same brush of corruption as your predecessor Dennis Dillon, it does appear that you are acting in concert with a court that by all appearances, has suspended the Constitution and is moving forward in a rogue manner in total denial of fundamental rights and previous Supreme Court rulings.   As can be seen by my enclosed letter to the clerk of the court, I have requested a continuance in order to obtain a formal position from your office – and if this does not satisfy the Constitutional issues raised, I will then be able to pursue media coverage in this matter, and if necessary to remove the case from the venue of the Nassau County District Court, and into the United States District Court.   A response from you with respect to how you are going to proceed -- whether you are going to attempt to suspend the Constitution and thwart the rulings of the Supreme Court – as well as the case law prescience of the US Northern District Court of New York which is provided in my moving papers -- would be helpful in my attempt to bring about both options.    All I need from you is an acknowledgement that either the Constitution is not applicable in the court of present venue, or you are going to proceed regardless of statements of facts and laws that I have set before this court, and the task of obtaining media coverage and/or removal to US District Court will be an easy.   This is a reasonable request.


On the 21st day of June, 2004, I initiated a Motion to dismiss in the matter of the above summons, on the basis of First Amendment religious grounds in opposition to the NYS Seatbelt law.    A copy of the original Motion which was properly filed with the court certified mail, can be accessed on the Internet at .   Further, a copy of all other communications in this matter, including a copy of this letter with workable links, can be found at -- which is under the domain at .    And in order to track both this and the allegations of corruption which have previously been sent to your office, I have opened a page for you at


To date I have not received a reply to this Motion.   If your office does not have jurisdiction in this matter, or it is your intention not to reply and state your arguments to the matters of fact and law that are presented in my moving papers, then please state so in writing.   In view of the fact that the court is attempting to move in this matter without addressing the Constitutional issues that are raised -- as if the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant -- I have to make a decision prior to any appearance in this matter.   It is my position that all courts in these United States are required to maintain Constitutional integrity, and when these essential mandates are not met, I believe that the precedent is embodied in the ruling: "Any law opposed to the Constitution of the United States is as if it were no law at all!"  (16 A.M. Jur. 2nd p.177).   And once it is established that your office and this court intends on moving forward without meeting Constitutional muster, then the whole nature and defense of this matter becomes radically altered.


In my Motion papers and associated web pages, I demonstrate that the foundational mindset upon which the seatbelt law is based, is not only in conflict with the Bible, but also with my own spiritual knowledge gained through the practice of my religion, as well as modern science as demonstrated in quantum physics.   And while it is the right of people to remain attached to the fossilized thinking of the past, I not only have a First Amendment religious right to remain free of the dictates of a mindset that I thoroughly reject as enumerated in both my Motion and my enclosed letter to the clerk of the court which you can also find at ), but there is also an additional claim under the right to privacy which you endorsed in your recent campaign against former District Attorney Dennis Dillon. 


In addition to my First Amendment Religious Arguments: When the Supreme Court ruled that there is a Constitutional Right of Privacy in Griswold vs Connecticut in 1965 with respect to the original issue of birth control – which was later extended to a woman’s right to choose with respect to the termination of her pregnancy in Roe vs Wade – what the Court affirmed was that Americans possess the freedom of government intervention in their lives.   In the case of the anti-smoking laws, government has a compelling interest because of the effect of second hand smoke on other people.   So the right of the individual to smoke, even though they are in effect killing themselves, is not the concern of the government.   Thus, while the person has the right to privacy with respect to their own health and wellbeing, the laws which prohibit their smoking in the vicinity of others is Constitutional, because of the negative impact of second hand smoke.  


While the Right to Privacy could easily be established with respect to birth control, the application of this right to terminate a pregnancy is opposed by many as the murder of the unborn.   But this same Right to Privacy and restriction of government intervention in the lives of citizens is the basis for the more recent upholding of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.   And as stated in my Motion, the NYS Immunization law was ruled as unconstitutional in Allanson v. Clinton Central School District (84-CV-174), because it did not contain a provision for a personal religious exemption.  


The only valid issue from a Constitutional perspective that is before the court at present, is whether the practice of my religion in my not wearing a seatbelt based upon my spiritual conviction that there are no accidents -- and every event not only has a cause -- but that said cause can be perceived by those who evolve to a spiritually mature state of mind and being -- would negatively affect the wellbeing of other drivers in the event of a collision.   Further, I have a Constitutional right to privacy as ruled by the Supreme Court in a multitude of case law.   Unless you can demonstrate as in the example of second hand smoke, that my not wearing a seatbelt will negatively impact other drivers, then this matter must be dismissed on Constitutional grounds. 






The Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.